Chapter 5: Overview of Query Processing

• Query Processing Overview

• Query Optimization
• Distributed Query Processing Steps

Acknowledgements: I am indebted to Arturas Mazeika for providing me his slides of this course.

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 1

 Query Processing Overview

• Query processing: A 3-step process that transforms a high-level query (of relational
calculus/SQL) into an equivalent and more efficient lower-level query (of relational
algebra).
1. Parsing and translation
– Check syntax and verify relations.
– Translate the query into an equivalent
relational algebra expression.
2. Optimization
– Generate an optimal evaluation plan
(with lowest cost) for the query plan.
3. Evaluation
– The query-execution engine takes an
(optimal) evaluation plan, executes that
plan, and returns the answers to the
query.

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 2

 Query Processing . . .

• The success of RDBMSs is due, in part, to the availability

– of declarative query languages that allow to easily express complex queries without
knowing about the details of the physical data organization and
– of advanced query processing technology that transforms the high-level
user/application queries into efficient lower-level query execution strategies.

• The query transformation should achieve both correctness and efficiency

– The main difficulty is to achieve the efficiency
– This is also one of the most important tasks of any DBMS

• Distributed query processing: Transform a high-level query (of relational

calculus/SQL) on a distributed database (i.e., a set of global relations) into an
equivalent and efficient lower-level query (of relational algebra) on relation fragments.

• Distributed query processing is more complex

– Fragmentation/replication of relations
– Additional communication costs
– Parallel execution

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 3

 Query Processing Example

• Example: Transformation of an SQL-query into an RA-query.

Relations: EMP(ENO, ENAME, TITLE), ASG(ENO,PNO,RESP,DUR)
Query: Find the names of employees who are managing a project?

– High level query

SELECT ENAME
FROM EMP,ASG
WHERE [Link] = [Link] AND DUR > 37

– Two possible transformations of the query are:

∗ Expression 1: ΠEN AM E (σDU R>37∧EM [Link] O=[Link] O (EM P × ASG))
∗ Expression 2: ΠEN AM E (EM P ⋊
⋉EN O (σDU R>37 (ASG)))
– Expression 2 avoids the expensive and large intermediate Cartesian product, and
therefore typically is better.

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 4

 Query Processing Example . . .

• We make the following assumptions about the data fragmentation

– Data is (horizontally) fragmented:
∗ Site1: ASG1 = σEN O≤”E3” (ASG)
∗ Site2: ASG2 = σEN O>”E3” (ASG)
∗ Site3: EM P 1 = σEN O≤”E3” (EM P )
∗ Site4: EM P 2 = σEN O>”E3” (EM P )
∗ Site5: Result
– Relations ASG and EMP are fragmented in the same way
– Relations ASG and EMP are locally clustered on attributes RESP and ENO,
respectively

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 5

 Query Processing Example . . .

• Now consider the expression ΠEN AM E (EM P ⋊

⋉EN O (σDU R>37 (ASG)))
• Strategy 1 (partially parallel execution):
– Produce ASG′1 and move to Site 3
– Produce ASG′2 and move to Site 4
– Join ASG′1 with EMP1 at Site 3 and
move the result to Site 5
– Join ASG′2 with EMP2 at Site 4 and
move the result to Site 5
– Union the result in Site 5

• Strategy 2:
– Move ASG1 and ASG2 to Site 5
– Move EMP1 and EMP2 to Site 5
– Select and join at Site 5

• For simplicity, the final projection is

omitted.

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 6

 Query Processing Example . . .
• Calculate the cost of the two strategies under the following assumptions:
– Tuples are uniformly distributed to the fragments; 20 tuples satisfy DUR>37
– size(EMP) = 400, size(ASG) = 1000
– tuple access cost = 1 unit; tuple transfer cost = 10 units
– ASG and EMP have a local index on DUR and ENO
• Strategy 1
– Produce ASG’s: (10+10) * tuple access cost 20
– Transfer ASG’s to the sites of EMPs: (10+10) * tuple transfer cost 200
– Produce EMP’s: (10+10) * tuple access cost * 2 40
– Transfer EMP’s to result site: (10+10) * tuple transfer cost 200
– Total cost 460
• Strategy 2
– Transfer EMP1 , EMP2 to site 5: 400 * tuple transfer cost 4,000
– Transfer ASG1 , ASG2 to site 5: 1000 * tuple transfer cost 10,000
– Select tuples from ASG1 ∪ ASG2 : 1000 * tuple access cost 1,000
– Join EMP and ASG’: 400 * 20 * tuple access cost 8,000
– Total cost 23,000

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 7

 Query Optimization

• Query optimization is a crucial and difficult part of the overall query processing
• Objective of query optimization is to minimize the following cost function:
I/O cost + CPU cost + communication cost

• Two different scenarios are considered:

– Wide area networks
∗ Communication cost dominates
· low bandwidth
· low speed
· high protocol overhead
∗ Most algorithms ignore all other cost components
– Local area networks
∗ Communication cost not that dominant
∗ Total cost function should be considered

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 8

 Query Optimization . . .

• Ordering of the operators of relational algebra is crucial for efficient query processing
• Rule of thumb: move expensive operators at the end of query processing
• Cost of RA operations:

Operation Complexity
Select, Project O(n)
(without duplicate elimination)
Project O(n log n)
(with duplicate elimination)
Group
Join
Semi-join O(n log n)
Division
Set Operators
Cartesian Product O(n2 )

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 9

 Query Optimization Issues

Several issues have to be considered in query optimization

• Types of query optimizers

– wrt the search techniques (exhaustive search, heuristics)
– wrt the time when the query is optimized (static, dynamic)

• Statistics
• Decision sites
• Network topology
• Use of semijoins

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 10

 Query Optimization Issues . . .

• Types of Query Optimizers wrt Search Techniques

– Exhaustive search
∗ Cost-based
∗ Optimal
∗ Combinatorial complexity in the number of relations
– Heuristics
∗ Not optimal
∗ Regroups common sub-expressions
∗ Performs selection, projection first
∗ Replaces a join by a series of semijoins
∗ Reorders operations to reduce intermediate relation size
∗ Optimizes individual operations

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 11

 Query Optimization Issues . . .

• Types of Query Optimizers wrt Optimization Timing

– Static
∗ Query is optimized prior to the execution
∗ As a consequence it is difficult to estimate the size of the intermediate results
∗ Typically amortizes over many executions
– Dynamic
∗ Optimization is done at run time
∗ Provides exact information on the intermediate relation sizes
∗ Have to re-optimize for multiple executions
– Hybrid
∗ First, the query is compiled using a static algorithm
∗ Then, if the error in estimate sizes greater than threshold, the query is re-optimized
at run time

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 12

 Query Optimization Issues . . .

• Statistics
– Relation/fragments
∗ Cardinality
∗ Size of a tuple
∗ Fraction of tuples participating in a join with another relation/fragment
– Attribute
∗ Cardinality of domain
∗ Actual number of distinct values
∗ Distribution of attribute values (e.g., histograms)
– Common assumptions
∗ Independence between different attribute values
∗ Uniform distribution of attribute values within their domain

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 13

 Query Optimization Issues . . .

• Decision sites
– Centralized
∗ Single site determines the ”best” schedule
∗ Simple
∗ Knowledge about the entire distributed database is needed
– Distributed
∗ Cooperation among sites to determine the schedule
∗ Only local information is needed
∗ Cooperation comes with an overhead cost
– Hybrid
∗ One site determines the global schedule
∗ Each site optimizes the local sub-queries

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 14

 Query Optimization Issues . . .

• Network topology
– Wide area networks (WAN) point-to-point
∗ Characteristics
· Low bandwidth
· Low speed
· High protocol overhead
∗ Communication cost dominate; all other cost factors are ignored
∗ Global schedule to minimize communication cost
∗ Local schedules according to centralized query optimization
– Local area networks (LAN)
∗ Communication cost not that dominant
∗ Total cost function should be considered
∗ Broadcasting can be exploited (joins)
∗ Special algorithms exist for star networks

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 15

 Query Optimization Issues . . .

• Use of Semijoins
– Reduce the size of the join operands by first computing semijoins
– Particularly relevant when the main cost is the communication cost
– Improves the processing of distributed join operations by reducing the size of data
exchange between sites
– However, the number of messages as well as local processing time is increased

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 16

 Distributed Query Processing Steps

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 17

 Conclusion

• Query processing transforms a high level query (relational calculus) into an equivalent
lower level query (relational algebra). The main difficulty is to achieve the efficiency in
the transformation

• Query optimization aims to mimize the cost function:

I/O cost + CPU cost + communication cost

• Query optimizers vary by search type (exhaustive search, heuristics) and by type of the
algorithm (dynamic, static, hybrid). Different statistics are collected to support the query
optimization process

• Query optimizers vary by decision sites (centralized, distributed, hybrid)

• Query processing is done in the following sequence: query decomposition→data
localization→global optimization→ local optimization

DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 18